To the Editor:

I want to alert your attention to D. M. Chirico’s review of my book, Origins: on the Genesis of Psychic Reality (CH, Mar’11, 48-4176).  The evaluator apparently did not read my book, as evidenced by her failure to explain what it is about, which is the first systematic psychoanalytic metaphysics in the history of ideas.  She only draws on a few words from the first page of my introduction, and then sweepingly dismisses the whole project.  In addition, she misinforms the reader about matters of fact.  She states that I “do not call on secondary sources” when I have a 19-page bibliography covering hundreds of works.  She claims that “by eliminating secondary sources, the author also eliminates criticisms about the unconscious going back to Wittgenstein.”  This shows that her review is the product of bias toward the notion of the unconscious; if she had read the book, she would have seen that I addressed his arguments throughout chapter 1, specifically starting on page 63.  She comments that the book is “unsuitable for academic consumption,” when I address the primary original texts of Freud and Hegel in German.  We call this scholarship.  Chirico is negligent in her review.  According to her online CV, Chirico has an Ed.D in religion and education, has never published on Freud or Hegel, and apparently does not read German.  She is neither a philosopher nor a psychologist, and has no expertise or qualifications to review my book capably.  How could Choice choose a reviewer who does not even know the subject matter of my book, let alone is supposedly able to review it impartially?  This is quite an egregious matter and speaks to the greater ethical issue of misrepresentation in academic reviews.  Chirico has prejudiced and misinformed the readership, who are in positions of recommending books to academic libraries.  

Jon Mills, Psy.D., Ph.D., ABPP

The reviewer responds:

To the Editor:

In my review of Dr. Mills’s book the restrictions of brevity for publication did not permit a more elaborated rationale behind several of the critical points discussed.  Given that there has been an ongoing challenge to psychoanalysis, its methods, and the existence of the unconscious (see Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson, John Searle, Frederick Crews, and Richard Webster, among others), to advocate an idiosyncratic approach within that system without the evidentiary support needed to determine its efficacy is at best difficult.   Since I am not a psychoanalytic practitioner, I asked a colleague who is one to provide some feedback about the ideas presented and he agreed with my general assessment.  Although the book itself was not recommended, I did suggest in the review that those interested in learning more about process psychology look at Dr. Mills’s Web site.  In writing a review where one is obliged to consider the aim of helping readers make a decision about adding a particular book to their collections for a broader audience, both the specificity and limitations of this effort led to the recommendation given.

D. M.Chirico
York College CUNY

~

To the Editor:

In Dr. Neal’s review of my book A Wake Up Call for Schools, (CH, Jul’11, 48-6431), he focuses on three areas: my credentials and professional experience; the content, including cited research; and the writing style.

Dr. Neal writes that this book reflects my experiences in “a” school district.  I have been employed in eleven school districts in New York and in Texas in instructional, diagnostic, and central office administrative positions, in addition to employment at the university level.  I have completed more than 150 graduate hours from seven universities in New York and in Texas, resulting in nine educator certifications from the classroom to the superintendency.  My doctorate degree in educational administration was completed in 1994 from Texas A&M University-Commerce.  This is my thirty seventh year in public education.  At present I am the director of the Educational Diagnostician Program, College of Education & Human Services, Texas A&M University-Commerce and an instructor in the program. I am also under contract with the Education Testing Service in Princeton, New Jersey.

In addition to my professional experiences and interviews with experienced educators, more than fifty sources of research-based findings are cited in the 111 pages of the book. Checklists throughout provide the reader with easily accessed listings for timely implementation of key concepts for effective schools.

My intention was to write an approachable, readable book for all stakeholders in public education. My book captures the attention and commitment of a global readership of parents, community members, students, business and industry, and educators.  With this purpose in mind the style and format were selected and developed.  A Wake Up Call for Schools is meant to transcend academic holdings and be accessible to stakeholders and all who are interested in an educated citizenry.

Patricia A. Parrish, Ed.D.
Educator & Author
www.edu-excellence.com

The reviewer responds:

Dr. Parrish writes that my review of her work A Wake Up Call for Schools impugned her credentials, the book’s content, and the literary style.  I would begin by stating that nowhere did I suggest that Dr. Parrish does not have impeccable credentials.  My review states that the work recounted her experiences in one school district.  Nowhere in the volume does Dr. Parrish state otherwise. She describes her encounters with “the superintendent,” “the counselor,” and other staff members, and never states that these people are literary aggregations of people with whom she has worked over the years.

In terms of content, what Dr. Parrish consistently offers the reader is page after page of numerical/bulleted listings of “suggestions’” that will improve how schools operate.  In one instance, a chapter of twelve pages (chapter 5) contains six pages of bulleted listings; in another (chapter 6), there are only ten pages but there are five pages of listings.  Additionally, in most instances, there are no references provided to let the reader know from where these “suggestions” or “effective practices” emanate.  Graphic figures appear out of nowhere, with no explanation as to what they mean or where readers might find the source of that information.

As for literary style, the accepted style guide for the field of education is the APA Publication Manual. Superscripts and endnotes instead prevail in this work.  Narratives that readers might assume are from the author’s pen are in fact cited as “Personal Communication” from nearly twenty years ago.  A chapter entitled  “The Triad” discusses only two legs of that “triad.”

Dr. Parrish’s project is well intentioned, but Choice reviewers are asked to evaluate the suitability of books for academic collections, and her book is not suitable for academic collections.

Jerry D. Neal, Ed.D.
University of Central Missouri